or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › John Edwards Admits Affair
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John Edwards Admits Affair - Page 2

post #41 of 74
Quote:
The National Enquirer reported of the alleged Edwards-Hunter affair in October 2007. However, at that time his campaign staff, Hunter and Edwards himself denounced the reports. "The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's ridiculous," Edwards said. As recently as two weeks ago, Edwards still denied any affair between himself and Hunter.

I am so subscribing to the National Enquirer. With the censored information being spit out by the rest of the media, truth has to come out in the tabloids eh?
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #42 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Nonsense. The liberal media has focused unrelentingly on these fake "scandals" because they will seize any opportunity to discredit and slime Republicans.

I think you are correct. I mean here is Clark Hoyt explaining why the Times was willing to run completely false and unsubstantiated sex charges against McCain. It is especially cool how he admits they didn't lift a finger on the Edwards story and spent weeks on the McCain story.

Dear Clark,

The first rule of getting yourself out of a hole, stop digging.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 74
The NYT's reasoning is perfectly sound:
Quote:
"Edwards isn’t a player at the moment," said Richard Stevenson, who directs the newspaper’s campaign coverage. "There are a lot of big issues facing the country. The two candidates are compelling figures, and we have finite resources." He said he agreed that Edwards was "fair game for journalism of this sort, but this hasn’t seemed to me to be a high priority for us at this moment." I spoke with Stevenson and Keller last week before Edwards’s ABC interview.

What's wrong with that logic? The Edwards story is tabloid garbage; he's not running for anything and he's not even an office-holder.

And you cannot equate the two as if they are in any way similar...
Quote:
Keller and Stevenson said it was wrong to equate the McCain and Edwards stories, as so many readers and bloggers have. The editors saw the McCain story as describing a powerful senator’s dealings with lobbyists trying to influence government decisions, including one who anonymous sources believed was having a romantic relationship with him. "Our interest in that story was not in his private romantic life," Keller said. "It was in his relationship with lobbyists, plural, and that story took many, many weeks of intensive reporting effort."

I would not have published the allegation of a McCain affair, because The Times did not convincingly establish its truth. I would not have recycled the National Enquirer story, either. But I think it was a mistake for Times editors to turn up their noses and not pursue it. "There was a tendency, fair or not, to dismiss what you read in the National Enquirer," Keller said. "I know they are sometimes right." When the Enquirer published its first "love child" report, The Times was going energetically after the McCain story. It should have pursued the other story as well.

McCain has a history of cheating on his wives, so it's not even as if the allegation is ridiculous, and you have absolutely no reason to say it's "false", you don't know that anymore than I know it's "true".

The McCain story is about the fact that McCain is so in-bed (perhaps literally) with lobbyists and the disturbing ramifications of that were he to be elected president.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #44 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

The NYT's reasoning is perfectly sound:

What's wrong with that logic? The Edwards story is tabloid garbage; he's not running for anything and he's not even an office-holder.

And you cannot equate the two as if they are in any way similar...

Well except for the fact that Edwards claims the affair was in 2006, and then spent 2007 and part of 2008 running for president, I guess I can see your point. If the NY Times had wanted to put the same effort on this as they did the McCain story they would could have broken the story during the primaries. It might have even helped their stock price.

This is why the rationales in the article by the editor are so terrible and unbelievable. The National Enquirer has been running with, adding evidence for and pursuing this story for the entire time frame of the presidential contest. Edwards broke the story himself AFTER he was done running for president and also AFTER he was tired of being chased down. He smartly figured that breaking it on the same day as the Olympics opening would give him about as much cover as one can hope. No one was going to remove the pictures of the opening ceremonies from their front pages to stick John Edwards up there.

Quote:
McCain has a history of cheating on his wives, so it's not even as if the allegation is ridiculous, and you have absolutely no reason to say it's "false", you don't know that anymore than I know it's "true".

The McCain story is about the fact that McCain is so in-bed (perhaps literally) with lobbyists and the disturbing ramifications of that were he to be elected president.

McCain cheated on both his wives? I haven't read that anywhere and would like a link. Also an allegation is ridiculous if it is patently untrue and has no means of possibly being true. Edwards meets the archetype of what has cheated in the past and there is no reason to not suspect him to the point of being unwilling to even investigate the claim. I'm not saying they needed to run completely baseless claims, because that would be what they did to McCain, but to refuse to even investigate is bias.

Also everyone recognized the McCain NY Times story for what it was a bunch of dust being tossed in the air with absolutely nothing new and nothing substantive. Even the claimed concerns about the female lobbiest were from his first presidential campaign almost eight years prior.

I just love the reasoning there. We are investigating something that happened eight years ago that was a dead end so we can regurgitate it along with something that happened 20 years ago. However we can't pursue a story about Edwards at the time it is relevant. When when we finally do have to report on it because he discloses the information himself, we want you to all remember this is old news and not relevant to anything now.

Edwards has been slimy in all his dealings from studying poverty at hedge funds, to having his own people work for his poverty center, to taking the wife to Wendy's for the cameras each year. It is hilarious for the Times to call anyone who touches McCain a lobbiest and anything done on his behalf a gift and, again just ignore the fact that major portions of Edwards staff were conveniently "hired" at his poverty center in between his campaigns. It stinks of that typical double-sided standard that is applied called bias. On Republicans it is cite whether true or not and follow the money. On Democrats it is, well we don't want to follow the money because he has such good ideas and causes and of course don't really pursue or report on it, even when it is substantiated.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 74
I read on Drudge that the woman wont allow a paternity test -- if she is for real, then it would mean that Edwards is not stark raving mad for trying run with a love child floating around somewhere. (Since everyone has affairs anymore.)

It's unlikely they are in collusion in not going for the paternity test, so she is probably screwing with him for money, or cooperating with someone to keep him off the VP list.


How many delegates does he have, again?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #46 of 74
If the story had broken during the primaries we wouldn't be talking about this now, because the primaries are already over.

Quote:
If the NY Times had wanted to put the same effort on this as they did the McCain story they would could have broken the story during the primaries.

Why would they? The Edwards story is a tawdry extra-marital affair story; the McCain story is about a corrupt politician who might become president.

Quote:
McCain cheated on both his wives? I haven't read that anywhere and would like a link.

He's certainly cheated on one (who was recovering from terrible injuries... eerily similar to Edwards, eh?) and possibly the second. Neither you nor I know.

I don't really care about McCain's infidelities. The issue in the NYT story about him and Iseman was the access she had to him as a powerful senator on powerful committees and how easily influenced he was by lobbying. Whether or not they had sex is a side issue, and one being used by conservatives to distract from the actual substance of the article; McCain's fake image as some bastion of incorruptibility.

Quote:
Also an allegation is ridiculous if it is patently untrue and has no means of possibly being true.

So you are arguing that there is no way that John McCain and Vicki Iseman had an affair? How do you arrive at such exacting certainty?

Quote:
I just love the reasoning there. We are investigating something that happened eight years ago that was a dead end so we can regurgitate it along with something that happened 20 years ago. However we can't pursue a story about Edwards at the time it is relevant. When when we finally do have to report on it because he discloses the information himself, we want you to all remember this is old news and not relevant to anything now.

The Edwards story isn't relevant because he isn't a candidate for president and he never really had a shot to become one.

John McCain, on the other hand, might very well become our next president. Just how easy he is to buy is pretty important.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #47 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

If the story had broken during the primaries we wouldn't be talking about this now, because the primaries are already over.

Why would they? The Edwards story is a tawdry extra-marital affair story; the McCain story is about a corrupt politician who might become president.

McCain was never found to be corrupt. What are you talking about? That was the whole point. Nothing has been found and so they put a bunch of old allegations together and tossed them up like dust hoping people would be blinded for a bit.

Regardless of how bad you want to toss Edwards under the bus, he is a former senator, the last VP candidate and was a recent candidate for President of the United States.

I guess that means Al Gore is a nobody as well. He fits the same criteria.

Quote:
He's certainly cheated on one (who was recovering from terrible injuries... eerily similar to Edwards, eh?) and possibly the second. Neither you nor I know.

If know one knows then why bring it up? Oh wait... baseless accusations again.

Quote:
I don't really care about McCain's infidelities. The issue in the NYT story about him and Iseman was the access she had to him as a powerful senator on powerful committees and how easily influenced he was by lobbying. Whether or not they had sex is a side issue, and one being used by conservatives to distract from the actual substance of the article; McCain's fake image as some bastion of incorruptibility.

So you bring up that which you do not care about. Interesting. Actually the article is nothing like you portray. First lobbying isn't illegal. The letters McCain wrote were not illegal. The article makes it clear that the worry was that people would investigate the lobbying and find the claimed relationship. It was a very long winded means of bringing up the relationship but that is what it was about.

Quote:
So you are arguing that there is no way that John McCain and Vicki Iseman had an affair? How do you arrive at such exacting certainty?

I would call the passage of time with no evidence and also both of their denials to be pretty good grounds for certainty.

Quote:
The Edwards story isn't relevant because he isn't a candidate for president and he never really had a shot to become one.

John McCain, on the other hand, might very well become our next president. Just how easy he is to buy is pretty important.

McCain ran behind for quite a bit of time. This story was printed in February of this year and had the timing of trying to damage McCain after he was far enough ahead to put the race out of reach, but still within the time frame to leave any second choice as weak. Just because it didn't do that doesn't mean that wasn't the purpose. The story was junk. Edwards is certainly finished now but before this he was still going to be speaking at the convention. He was a high profile face for the party.

I think I'll let Edwards have the final word on this.

John Edwards on Bill Clinton in 1999:

I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #48 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

McCain was never found to be corrupt.

There was an allegation that McCain had had an affair. Then McCain got asked about it, and he said "Nope. I didn't." And then the press said "Well, it's McCain! He's a straight talker! Let's not waste time investigating anything. Hey, are those cheetoes?"

There wasn't even a process story about the rumor. It just never came up again.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #49 of 74
Quote:
McCain was never found to be corrupt. What are you talking about?

I am talking about McCain's history of the typical corruption found in career Senators. Not only is he one of the Keating Five, but the NYTimes piece you keep referencing is actually about how influenced he was by a lobbyist; the sex side was just a subtext that has been pounded by the right-wing in an attempt to hide the real story regarding Iseman, which is McCain's propensity to cater to big industry lobbyists despite his false pretense of eschewing them.

Quote:
Actually the article is nothing like you portray. First lobbying isn't illegal. The letters McCain wrote were not illegal. The article makes it clear that the worry was that people would investigate the lobbying and find the claimed relationship. It was a very long winded means of bringing up the relationship but that is what it was about.

Who said anything illegal happened? ("Well it isn't illegal!" is a logically weak argument when the discussion is about ethical credibility.)

The NYT articledoesn't focus on the potential romance angle. It's in there, but out of four pages there are only a few sentences that mention the suspicion of a romantic relationship, and the sources of that suspicion are McCain aides and advisors.

"In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others."

It's a perfectly solid piece of journalism and isn't anything at all like a tawdry sex-focused piece as you seem desperate to characterize it as.

Quote:
I would call the passage of time with no evidence and also both of their denials to be pretty good grounds for certainty.

Evidence of sexual involvement? That's an absurdly high bar to climb.

Quote:
This story was printed in February of this year and had the timing of trying to damage McCain after he was far enough ahead to put the race out of reach, but still within the time frame to leave any second choice as weak. Just because it didn't do that doesn't mean that wasn't the purpose. The story was junk.

The story is solid, it's a good insight into McCain's false pretense of incorruptibility.

Quote:
Edwards is certainly finished now but before this he was still going to be speaking at the convention.

He was? Where do you get this information?


midwinter:

They were too busy donut shopping.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #50 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

midwinter:

They were too busy donut shopping.

"Oh yes. with sprinkles!"

I have a little bit of vomit in my mouth.
post #51 of 74
the reason she isn't looking for a paternity test is she has already made a deal with edwards, gee he is a millionair and she does't want a paternaty test?? the question should have been, "is edwards paying childsupport" oh yea he is.
and he has placed himself througout this election cycle as a "deal maker" he is in contention for the vp, and the media is biased, that's the way it is.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #52 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

the reason she isn't looking for a paternity test is she has already made a deal with edwards, gee he is a millionair and she does't want a paternaty test?? the question should have been, "is edwards paying childsupport" oh yea he is.
and he has placed himself througout this election cycle as a "deal maker" he is in contention for the vp, and the media is biased, that's the way it is.

You can't seriously imagine he's still in contention for a VP slot, can you?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #53 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You can't seriously imagine he's still in contention for a VP slot, can you?


not any more ha ha, but he was looked at as a strong candidate till this happened. i wonder if he will speak at the convention......no way, maybe to reporters chasing him.
he shot himself in the groin this time.....gee he'll have to wait another 4 years
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #54 of 74
It has been asserted multiple times now that (1) Obama was considering Edwards for VP and (2) Edwards was going to speak at the DNC.

Is there any supporting evidence for either of these other than a desperate desire for them to be true in a transparent attempt to put a thin veneer of credibility on the resurrection of 90's-era Republican scandal politics?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #55 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

It has been asserted multiple times now that (1) Obama was considering Edwards for VP and (2) Edwards was going to speak at the DNC.

Is there any supporting evidence for either of these other than a desperate desire for them to be true in a transparent attempt to put a thin veneer of credibility on the resurrection of 90's-era Republican scandal politics?

Sure there is. It's been said several times right here in this thread that it is so. What more do you need?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #56 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You can't seriously imagine he's still in contention for a VP slot, can you?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #57 of 74
Agreed. The three main contenders now are Sam Nunn, Wes Clark and Joe Biden.

Fucking thread over. This just perpetuates bullshit on top of bullshit.
post #58 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

There was an allegation that McCain had had an affair. Then McCain got asked about it, and he said "Nope. I didn't." And then the press said "Well, it's McCain! He's a straight talker! Let's not waste time investigating anything. Hey, are those cheetoes?"

There wasn't even a process story about the rumor. It just never came up again.

I don't call it coming up eight years later as never coming up again. Call me crazy that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

I am talking about McCain's history of the typical corruption found in career Senators. Not only is he one of the Keating Five, but the NYTimes piece you keep referencing is actually about how influenced he was by a lobbyist; the sex side was just a subtext that has been pounded by the right-wing in an attempt to hide the real story regarding Iseman, which is McCain's propensity to cater to big industry lobbyists despite his false pretense of eschewing them.

This is a very long-winded way of justifying the fact that you have alleged (again) things that are not true. McCain was never found guilty of a change and was cleared. The very link you posted notes that. I get that you want to buy the pretense of the NY Times for bringing up an 8 year old allegation substantiated by anonymous sources to revisit 20 year old allegations that ended in McCain being cleared. You buy the spin. For myself and everyone else that condemned the Times article it stinks of the same type of bullshit that has dropped the stock price of the Times into the toilet, shrinks the circulation and leads to yet another round of layoffs.

People dont buy the news from an organization that doesn't report it.

Quote:
Who said anything illegal happened? ("Well it isn't illegal!" is a logically weak argument when the discussion is about ethical credibility.)

I forgot. You were talking about that definition of "typically corrupt" that involves doing nothing wrong and nothing illegal.

Quote:
The NYT articledoesn't focus on the potential romance angle. It's in there, but out of four pages there are only a few sentences that mention the suspicion of a romantic relationship, and the sources of that suspicion are McCain aides and advisors.

It doesn't focus on any angle. It is a bunch of baseless charges from all manner of directions and all manner of time frames all dumped into a bullshit article. The reasoning doesn't even make sense. Being self-confident means you might break the law or cheat or not notice the imagery that would suggest these things because... hey look a pretty bird! It doesn't name a single source.

It is nonsense. It is crap. Thanks for tossing it out there so we can all try to forget what a shit John Edwards is and how he was never nothing even when he was something,

This does bring up an interesting and funny twist in my mind though. How terrified is anyone of actually being asked to be the VP? I mean the last two have been Lieberman and Edwards. It appears to be a curse of some sort. Even Gore who made out better than most would still be cursed based off how 2000 went.

Quote:
It's a perfectly solid piece of journalism and isn't anything at all like a tawdry sex-focused piece as you seem desperate to characterize it as.

It is hilarious and desperate to characterize a piece that doesn't list a single source who is on record about their "concerns" as a solid piece.

When the hell did concerns become news anyway? Editorial fodder sure, but it isn't news.

Quote:
Evidence of sexual involvement? That's an absurdly high bar to climb.

Oh I forgot. The Times can put a team of reporters to work for weeks to air out "concerns" but can't lift a finger to investigate an affair that a candidate in the primary process lied about.

Oh but those.... concerns... they could be really important concerns even though they are only about "typical corruption found in career Senators" so they are.... typical concerns and thus are newsworthy. They aren't illegal. There aren't charges. There isn't a relationship. There are... concerns.

Yep... sounds like a solid piece.

Quote:
The story is solid, it's a good insight into McCain's false pretense of incorruptibility.

Ahahahahahahahaha.... it is a false show of incorruptibility and we can show this by airing concerns from anonymous sources for our solid story.

Quote:
He was? Where do you get this information?

It's out there. He was a former candidate, Senator and the last VP nominee. He also endorsed Obama when he jumped out.

john edwards convention

I can see the response now.

"Those articles are all childish and idiotic!"

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #59 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I don't call it coming up eight years later as never coming up again. Call me crazy that way.

Are we talking about the same under-reported McCain affair allegation? Or are you talking about his having fathered an illegitimate black child?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #60 of 74
Quote:
You were talking about that definition of "typically corrupt" that involves doing nothing wrong and nothing illegal.

It depends on what "wrong" is to a given person. I think peddling influence among lobbyists is wrong for a legislator, even if it isn't illegal.

You have artificially forced the legal aspect into this. There are plenty of things that are wrong that are not illegal, I think everyone understands that.

Quote:
It doesn't focus on any angle. It is a bunch of baseless charges from all manner of directions and all manner of time frames all dumped into a bullshit article.

This is simply a hysterical characterization of a well-established and well-structured article with plenty of sources.

Quote:
It is hilarious and desperate to characterize a piece that doesn't list a single source who is on record about their "concerns" as a solid piece.

Why is that? Anonymous sources are a vital part of investigative journalism.

Quote:
The Times can put a team of reporters to work for weeks to air out "concerns" but can't lift a finger to investigate an affair that a candidate in the primary process lied about.

Two McCain aides came to the NYT about this. There's not much work involved with that.

Quote:
It's out there.

That isn't an answer to the question, so I'll ask it again:
He was? Where did you get this information?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Agreed. The three main contenders now are Sam Nunn, Wes Clark and Joe Biden.

I don't see wes clark. I thought the short list was Bayh, Biden and Kaine with Sebelius, Dodd and Hagel bring up the rear? I can't recall where I read that but it was maybe a week ago. Nunn, Biden and Dodd are a tad old strategically. They wont run in 8 years I wouldn't think.

I don't really see Kaine or Bayh as strong candidates but I guess they're the only folks in the right age group on the list.

I favor Sebelius if the Clinton/woman vote thing gets out of hand. But heck, she's sixty. That would also make her old as a follow on. Hagel is a non-starter even if it would be awesome.

I left Hillary off the list. She seems too much like a non-starter as well.
post #62 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Are we talking about the same under-reported McCain affair allegation? Or are you talking about his having fathered an illegitimate black child?

I'm talking about the word never meaning never.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #63 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm talking about the word never meaning never.

That's great. But were you talking about the Vicki Iseman issue or were you talking about something that I wasn't aware of?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I don't see wes clark. I thought the short list was Bayh, Biden and Kaine with Sebelius, Dodd and Hagel bring up the rear?

That's who I see. But I want him to pick Clark.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #65 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That's great. But were you talking about the Vicki Iseman issue or were you talking about something that I wasn't aware of?

This is the statement that was addressed.

Quote:
There was an allegation that McCain had had an affair. Then McCain got asked about it, and he said "Nope. I didn't." And then the press said "Well, it's McCain! He's a straight talker! Let's not waste time investigating anything. Hey, are those cheetoes?"

There wasn't even a process story about the rumor. It just never came up again.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is the statement that was addressed.

In February, rumors of a McCain affair hit the news. McCain held a press conference and denied it, and no one investigated it any further and it has never been in the news again.

I'm just trying to figure out if we're talking about the same thing. My point is that an allegation was raised and the press seemed to take McCain's word for it. An allegation was raised with Edwards and the press doesn't take his word for it.

There was never even an "anatomy" story about the McCain rumor. It just vanished, along with a pile of doughnuts.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It just vanished, along with a pile of doughnuts.

I think you meant ribs.
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I think you meant ribs.

And some Johnsonville brats
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #69 of 74
Edwards seems to be getting into it deep over this. He used his PAC to pay hush money to this woman. The FEC should investigate.

Edwards' associate explains payment to ex-mistress


Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- John Edwards' political action committee paid his mistress $14,000 after she stopped working for it to obtain 100 hours of unused videotape she had shot for his unsuccessful presidential campaign, an associate told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The woman, Rielle Hunter, already had been paid $100,000 for the programs.

The explanation -- which Edwards' advisers declined to discuss on the record -- is the first effort to justify the payment in April 2007 to Hunter. That payment came months before Edwards' chief fundraiser quietly began sending money himself to the pregnant woman.

...
post #70 of 74
I just thought I should bump this thread.

TRUMPTMAN LYNCHES JOHN EDWARDS BY REPORTING THE FACTS.

Why are helping to lynch this poor man, trumptman?
post #71 of 74
Ah, my mistake. Sorry.

John Edwards is not a black Republican.

This is not lynching. It is simply news.
post #72 of 74
Let's not forget that the Edwards journalist enablers scuttled the story for months before it came out.
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Let's not forget that the Edwards journalist enablers scuttled the story for months before it came out.

I know!

They LYNCHED HIM in the end, though!

LYNCHED HIM!
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I know!

They LYNCHED HIM in the end, though!

LYNCHED HIM!

No, they did not. It took the freaking National Enquirer to have it come out. It was known for months...maybe longer. They deliberately did NOT "lynch" him despite having allegations that were almost certainly true. You're proving my point.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › John Edwards Admits Affair